[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] slub,rcu: don't assume the size of struct rcu_head
On 03/01/2011 11:11 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> The SLAB and SLUB patches are fine by me if there are going to be real
>> users for this. Christoph, Paul?
> The solution is a bit overkill. It would be much simpler to add a union to
> struct page that has lru and the rcu in there similar things can be done
> for SLAB and the network layer. A similar issue already exists for the
> spinlock in struct page. Lets follow the existing way of handling this.

I don't want to impact the whole system too much to
touch struct page. The solution changes existed things little,
and the reversed data may just make use of the pad data.

> Struct page may be larger for debugging purposes already because of the
> need for extended spinlock data.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at
> Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-02 03:57    [W:0.056 / U:11.360 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site